Dear Fil,
Careful, please. I didn't say that Bunge's definition is the best among the definitions in my
collection. I said that it is the one useful definition that differs to the others posted in that
it is not descriptive. I didn't say it was the one useful definition, but merely that it was the
one useful definition that is not descriptive. It is useful because it is a synthetic definition by
a great scholar and physicist and a significant philosopher of science. At the time Bunge wrote
it, it distilled half a century of his thought, work, and reflection as a professional scientist
and philosopher.
At any rate, I'm not trying to convince you that it is the best among the definitions. I don't
argue that it is. What I suggest is that Bunge's definition offers serious opportunity for
reflection and inquiry into the nature of research. Taken together, all these definitions --
including Bunge's -- provide the material for an interesting seminar.
Yours,
Ken
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:40:39 -0400, Filippo A. Salustri <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Bunge's definition may be best, but I'd need to be convinced.
|